Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.delete

Delete a Gmail send-as alias and revoke its verification to remove unneeded aliases from domain-delegated Workspace accounts.

Instructions

Deletes the specified send-as alias. Revokes any verification that may have been required for using it. For more information, see Manage aliases and signatures with the Gmail API. This method is only available to service account clients that have been delegated domain-wide authority [HTTP DELETE] — removes the resource; irreversible unless the API documents a trash/undo flow; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, get, list, patch, update, verify.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
userIdYes[URL path segment] User's email address. The special value "me" can be used to indicate the authenticated user.me
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.
sendAsEmailYes[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sendAsEmail / description
      Previous value: -"The send-as alias to be deleted."New value: +"[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be deleted."
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / default
      Added value: +"me"
    • changedInput schema / properties / userId / description
      Previous value: -"User's email address. The special value \"me\" can be used to indicate the authenticated user."New value: +"[URL path segment] User's email address. The special value \"me\" can be used to indicate the authenticated user."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility, that verification grants are revoked, the domain-wide-delegation auth requirement, read-only refusal, and the post-delete return payload. These are the traits that determine whether an agent should call it at all, not restatements of the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the delegation constraint are front-loaded, which is right, but a documentation URL sits between them and the tail spends a sentence on request-body construction (`body_file`, params merge) for a DELETE that sends no body. That boilerplate dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive settings mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the permission gate, the irreversibility, the verification side effect, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide and call correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents userId, sendAsEmail, body_file and the params map; the description only echoes the precedence rule (typed flags win over `params`). Baseline applies, with a small bump for clarifying how the generic `params`/`query` escape hatches interact with typed fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Deletes the specified send-as alias") and adds the consequential side effect that verification is revoked. The closing clause enumerates the sibling operations on the same resource (create, get, list, patch, update, verify), so the agent can place it without inspecting other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a hard precondition — only usable by service account clients with domain-wide delegation — and warns the call is refused under read-only safety profiles, which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance agents need. It names alternatives but doesn't route explicitly (e.g. "to disable without removing, use patch"), leaving that inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools